Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Why do you suppose the Mayo Clinic identified those specific problems and advised people to take precautions? Answer: Because they are strongly associated with homosexual behavior.

No, they are not. The risk of sexually transmitted diseases is common to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. Everything they recommend to homosexuals on that page is also good advice for heterosexuals. The only thing discussed on that page as being associated with homosexuals are mental health issues arising from the bigotry and hatred that they face on a regular basis.

Are you seriously going to judge people who want to be married based on the behavior of the sexually promiscuous simply because they have the same gender preference?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mal...xual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

That is, as has already been pointed out in one of my previous posts, a right-wing anti-gay agency, created specifically to oppose equal rights for homosexuals. You might as well cite the Ku Klux Klan for evidence regarding the morality and work ethics of African Americans.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Why do you suppose the Mayo Clinic identified those specific problems and advised people to take precautions? Answer: Because they are strongly associated with homosexual behavior.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Why did you omit the text that clearly indicates that Dr. Chakraborty regards discrimination and abuse by homophobes to be the most likely explanation for the rate of mental health issues among homosexuals? It was right there. You pasted text from immediately before and after that statement.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

I may have alluded to a study or studies showing that promiscuity occurs at a higher rate among homosexual men than it does among non-homosexual men.

You haven't presented any such study.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

...Besides, as one continually seems to have to mention, your argument ignores the approximately half of those affected by gay marriage bans who, though they certainly will never show them to the likes of you, possess vaginas.

By the way, for those who might not be aware of it, the "American College of Pediatricians" cited as the source of Skyrider's above quotation is not the more generally known American Academy of Pediatricians. It is an organization founded in 2002 by social conservatives promoting a religious viewpoint, with the explicit and stated goal of opposing the viewpoint of the American Academy of Pediatricians. The latter organization has made statements accepting homosexuality and suggesting that the quality of parenting is not directly related to orientation. Readers of the ACP site will be treated to information on "gender identity disorder" and suggestions that homosexuality can and should be reversed. They also oppose contraception and abortion, promote spanking, and link directly from their site to The Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, and Focus on the Family.

Originally Posted by joobz

That's not a medical site. It's an anti gay site created by bigoted anti-gay doctors who write sciencey sounding nonsense with the intent of pleasing other anti gay bigots. If you want a real medical site, go to the AMA or mayo or the cdc or NIH or other reputable sites.

This sort of intellectual dishonesty shown by deliberate misusing sources is, IMO, the result of rationalising the need to accept Smith's frauds regarding the BoM and the BoA.
It's why accepting lies 'for the greater good' is so pernicious, in my view.

I haven't argued against gay marriage on the ground that promiscuity is "somehow a gay problem." I simply listed precautions homosexuals should take according to the Mayo Clinic. Independently of the Mayo Clinic post and the issue of gay marriage, I may have alluded to a study or studies showing that promiscuity occurs at a higher rate among homosexual men than it does among non-homosexual men.

You mean the very same precautions straight couples take? How exactly are they different?

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity...."
(snip)

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

The threat of living a homosexual lifestyle? I had no idea that a career in fashion design or a fondness for Broadway shows could be so dangerous. Though I am surprised that lesbians would spend so much time inserting penises in each others' anuses; never knew that before. Whose penises do they use?

I've never lived anything but a heterosexual lifestyle, but seriously, even I can figure out that 1) homosexuals come in two genders, both of whom would like to have the chance to marry same as everyone else, 2) they have lots of ways to enjoy sex that don't involve inserting a penis into an anus if they don't want to, and 3) a lifestyle and a specific sex act are two completely different things.

No, they are not. The risk of sexually transmitted diseases is common to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. Everything they recommend to homosexuals on that page is also good advice for heterosexuals.

It's a matter of degree. Homosexuals suffer the listed afflictions to a much greater extent than do heterosexuals. Mountains of data show this to be the case.

Quote:

The only thing discussed on that page as being associated with homosexuals are mental health issues arising from the bigotry and hatred that they face on a regular basis.

I think there is some truth in what you say. I also think self-guilt is a factor.

Quote:

Are you seriously going to judge people who want to be married based on the behavior of the sexually promiscuous simply because they have the same gender preference?

Why did you omit the text that clearly indicates that Dr. Chakraborty regards discrimination and abuse by homophobes to be the most likely explanation for the rate of mental health issues among homosexuals? It was right there. You pasted text from immediately before and after that statement.

Yes, I shoud have included that. However, as I note in a previous post, I think some of the mental problems that afflict homosexuals are the result of self-imposed guilt.

I worked with a doctor whose son, a returned missionary, is gay. The son suffers from extreme feelings of guilt. Commenting on his son's condition, the doctor--who is convinced people are born gay--asked me, "Why in the world would anyone choose to be a homosexual considering the pain they endure?"

Why did you omit the text that clearly indicates that Dr. Chakraborty regards discrimination and abuse by homophobes to be the most likely explanation for the rate of mental health issues among homosexuals? It was right there. You pasted text from immediately before and after that statement.

It was an honest oversight, and nothing more. If I thought about it at all, I probably reasoned that physical afflictions were easier to identify and diagnose. If I had wanted to hide Dr. Chakraborty's statement, why didn't I remove it from the post?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Yes, I shoud have included that. However, as I note in a previous post, I think some of the mental problems that afflict homosexuals are the result of self-imposed guilt.

I worked with a doctor whose son, a returned missionary, is gay. The son suffers from extreme feelings of guilt. Commenting on his son's condition, the doctor--who is convinced people are born gay--asked me, "Why in the world would anyone choose to be a homosexual considering the pain they endure?"

Originally Posted by skyrider44

It was an honest oversight, and nothing more. If I thought about it at all, I probably reasoned that physical afflictions were easier to identify and diagnose. If I had wanted to hide Dr. Chakraborty's statement, why didn't I remove it from the post?

And what does any of this have to do with anything?

You've identified a group with correlated social health problems.... AND? There is another group, poor people, the children of poor people are far more likely to suffer mental health problems than those not born into poverty, not to mention neglect and abuse. What do we do about that?

You've provided a solution without a problem and then in an ad hoc fashion found a problem for your solution (the solution of course is to keep gays from getting married). You're premise doesn't match your conclusion. It's a non sequitur. It does not follow. It would make far more sense to prevent poor people from marrying. In that case we have a direct correlation and clear cause and affect.

It's a matter of degree. Homosexuals suffer the listed afflictions to a much greater extent than do heterosexuals. Mountains of data show this to be the case.

You've said this before. You were asked for evidence.

Even if it was true, so what? Sexual activity between consenting adults is not illegal. And what does it have to do with allowing people to commit to each other monogamously?

Quote:

I think there is some truth in what you say. I also think self-guilt is a factor.

Just like countless heterosexuals were psychologically twisted by religious guilt to the point where they felt shame about their own sexuality even after marriage. Just like millions of people grew up thinking that they were depraved freaks because they couldn't overcome the urge to masturbate. I'm sure there are people who were taught to feel shame about their identities. But that fault is our society's, not theirs.

Quote:

No.

Then what is the point of the "evidence" that you are presenting?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Yes, I shoud have included that. However, as I note in a previous post, I think some of the mental problems that afflict homosexuals are the result of self-imposed guilt.

What? You have some very odd ideas. No evidence of course, just odd ideas. I have some gay friends and aquaintances and your post would give them a good chuckle. You are saying that all gays have mental problems. Divest yourself of this notion. Are some of the mental problems suffered by heterosexuals the result of non self-imposed guilt? What about bisexuals? Do they suffer from self-imposed and non self-imposed guilt on alternate days?

It was an honest oversight, and nothing more. If I thought about it at all, I probably reasoned that physical afflictions were easier to identify and diagnose. If I had wanted to hide Dr. Chakraborty's statement, why didn't I remove it from the post?

You did remove Dr. Chakraborty's statement.

You took two paragraphs that read:

Quote:

Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates.Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.

And rearranged them thusly:

Quote:

"[COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates[/color]," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence.

The blue part was quoted verbatim. The red part was omitted. The rest was rearranged by you so that you could work in the doctor's name and references to homosexuals experiencing problems with depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence. But you left out the part that damages your argument.

If it was not your intent to omit the comment, then why didn't you just copy and paste the paragraphs as they were?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

That is, as has already been pointed out in one of my previous posts, a right-wing anti-gay agency, created specifically to oppose equal rights for homosexuals. You might as well cite the Ku Klux Klan for evidence regarding the morality and work ethics of African Americans.

It appears you are unable to denigrate the integrity of the findings proper--findings backed by unbiased medical researchers and practitioners. That would seem to leave you with no recourse but to compare thosel medical professionals to the KKK. I don't find that to be a very compelling--not to mention fair--argument.

Are you really proposing that straight couples do not engage in anal sex...

No one with any sense of decency, morality, or common sense would sink to such depravity. If they do so choose, then they deserve to suffer all the resulting retribution, misery, and diseases and not expect others such as tax payers to pay for research and medical treatments.

What is the official LDS position on people like Warren Jeffs? ...he pretty much WAS the local government... Is the control Jeffs had over the town the kind of control the LDS Church wants over the communities where they have members

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.

You dishonestly truncated my post in a silly attempt to avoid facing my actual argument.
Here is the full response again in hopes that you will not play the same game.

Originally Posted by joobz

I have already shown the problem with the statistics in that paper. In particular, the fact they use simply t-tests with multiple comparisons as a first screen. This is a great way to create many false positives. It is why people in bioinformatics will often use corrections to avoid this type of error (for example, a bonferoni correction).
This is based upon the fact that I have actually read the regenerus paper. You still haven't read the original paper and only cite biased sources.

This is not supported by your evidence.
If you were not anti-gay, than you would advocate for gay marriage as it would clearly be a health benefit for the couples AND their children.
If you were not anti-gay, then you would not rely soley on biased/bigoted sources to find anti-gay propaganda and completely avoid reading the actual research sources.
If you were not anti-gay, you wouldn't selectively use arguments to argue against gay marriage that could equally (and even more appropriately) be applied to other groups (E.g., poor)

Perhaps you believe you aren't anti-gay. I would not be surprised by this. In the 50s, people who supported segregation often didn't believe they were racist. They simply thought that blacks were better off having their own "separate but equal" resources.

Importantly,
Not that I was responding to your reference to the regenerus paper, who is at UT Austin and not the mayo clinic. Why you even mention mayo clinic is beyond me. It doesn't support anything that you are attempting to claim.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

I think there is some truth in what you say. I also think self-guilt is a factor.

Much like how a white girl with racist parents feels guilt when she falls in love with a black man?

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mal...xual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

According to the Kinsey research, anal sex is more common among straight couples than gay male couples. Using anal sex to argue that homosexuality is more dangerous than being straight is based more on 1950's era misconceptions than reality.

You mean the very same precautions straight couples take? How exactly are they different?

The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends. Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men. The homosexual propaganda site Gay Sex seems to acknowledge as much but notes that the promiscuity rate among gay men is dropping.

I will supply figures/sources in a separate post (out of time for now).

Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.

Quote:

You're premise doesn't match your conclusion.

Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.

It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.

This sort of intellectual dishonesty shown by deliberate misusing sources is, IMO, the result of rationalising the need to accept Smith's frauds regarding the BoM and the BoA.
It's why accepting lies 'for the greater good' is so pernicious, in my view.

So, accepting the BoM and BA predisposes Latter-day Saints to accept certain research that shows children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents.

The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends. Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men.

Your logic weaves from wrongly assigning individuals traits because they are sometimes observed in groups to wrongly assigning groups traits that are sometime observed in individuals. It's a gordian knot of poor reasoning.

In fact, the main reason the wife of a straight couple need not take the same precautions is because of monogamy. Once both partners commit to each other, no new sexually transmitted diseases can enter the equation. THE EXACT SAME is true of homosexual couples. They can't catch a sexually-transmitted disease that neither person has.

By that logic, you should be in favor of gay marriage. It encourages pair-bonding and monogamy. It discourages the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Of course, if you just consider gay people to be sinners who must be marginalized until they give up their ways and embrace the Mormon idea of God ... then none of these arguments really matter.

No one with any sense of decency, morality, or common sense would sink to such depravity. If they do so choose, then they deserve to suffer all the resulting retribution, misery, and diseases and not expect others such as tax payers to pay for research and medical treatments.

Nonetheless, the evidence that this practice is widespread among heterosexuals is never used as an argument to prevent heterosexual marriage from occurring, and that suggests that it should never be used as an argument to prevent any marriage from occurring. Since I have a sometimes unpopular habit of wanting to argue one thing at a time, I will add my usual caveat: this would be the case even if the allegation is true. [quote]

Originally Posted by Janadele

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.

I am not sure I much agree with the last sentence, but that matter of opinion aside, I must note that the answer, which rather unusually is entirely your own and in your own words, is also directly responsive to the issue. You should take a lesson from yourself!

__________________I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends.

not true AT ALL. Unless, of course, you believe the high rates of AIDS in africa aren't of heterosexual couples.
But then, I am sure you could find some anti-gay bigoted site making such a claim.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men. The homosexual propaganda site Gay Sex seems to acknowledge as much but notes that the promiscuity rate among gay men is dropping.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

Do notice that the victims were not, for instance, led to have gender issues, or subjected to hazing by their peers--they were killed. Do notice by whom they were killed...

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.

You once again snipped out the entire point of the argument.
evidence is conclusive that being from low socioeconomic parents is a bad for child health.
You can't honestly say the same for gays parents.

This means that unless you advocate for preventing poor people from marrying (as you are advocating for gays), your position isn't rationally driven but prejudicial bigotry driven.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.

No study has shown that married gay couples are bad for children. We cannot have such a study until we have gay marriage. So, by your own argument, society will have a problem until it permits this test to be made.

Given the clear indication that stable families are good for children, allowing gays to marry will provide gays an avenue to enhance family stability.

If your real intent is protection of children (And not pure bigotry), you should be advocating for gay marriage. Not against it.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.

Given the fact that you fail to read the papers and have intentionally omitted lines from papers that contradict your position, this is a classic case of projection.
The Regenerus study is the only one that even comes close to suggest that gay couples may correlate with worse child outcomes. And that study uses rather loose statistical approaches to make these claims. I'd be happy to debate this with you. There are some important things to learn from the study.

But I am willing to bet you will avoid this discussion.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by skyrider44

The world renowned Mayo Clinic is anti-gay--right?

Is this equivocation, or are you, in fact, being disingenuous?

The rabidly anti-homosexual group referred to is the soi dissant "American College of Pediatricians", a hate group who chose their name to foster confusion with the American Academy of Pediatricians. The ACP's primary claim to fame is their penchant for mischaracterization and misuse of legitimate research.

Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes.30 This practice exposes the participants to all of the risks of anal-oral contact and many of the risks of analgenital contact.

Note the implication that coprophilia is a prevalent, uniquely homosexual, activity--with no support of either claim. Even if it were, in fact, common, and were, in fact, limited to homosexuals (do NOT search "Two Girls One Cup"), you have yet to make the connection between the idea that some homosexual men do dangerous things, and the idea that, therefore, NO homosexual couple should be allowed the benefits and protections of civil marriage, and NO homosexual couple should be allowed to raise children.

This is particularly puzzling given your sect's support of post-divorce remarriage, and your sect's silence in the face of the problem of evangelicals killing their children through child-raising techniques said to be "based on" the bible.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

It appears you are unable to denigrate the integrity of the findings proper--findings backed by unbiased medical researchers and practitioners. That would seem to leave you with no recourse but to compare thosel medical professionals to the KKK. I don't find that to be a very compelling--not to mention fair--argument.

Obviously you failed to read the linked I provided.

Quote:

In an amicus brief, the National Association of Social Workers described ACPeds as a "small and marginal group" which was "out of step with the research-based position of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities."

Quote:

PFLAG identifies the American College of Pediatricians as an anti-equality organization, describing the group as a "small splinter group of medical professionals who do not support the mainstream view of the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) that homosexuality is a normal aspect of human diversity."

Quote:

Gary Remafedi, a pediatrician at the University of Minnesota, found his research being cited by ACPeds to argue that schools should deny support to gay teenagers. Remafedi complained that ACPeds had fundamentally mischaracterized his work, saying: "It's obvious that they didn't even read my research. I mean, they spelled my name wrong every time they cited it." Remafedi complained to ACPeds that his work was being misrepresented, but the organization refused to correct or retract its assertions, leading Remafedi to state that ACPeds had "deliberately distorted my research for malicious purposes."

Quote:

Responding to claims by ACPeds that same-sex attraction could be "cured", Francis Collins, geneticist and director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, denounced ACPeds' use of his work, noting it was "disturbing" to see ACPeds use his scientific work in a "misleading and incorrect" way by taking work from one of his books out of context to "support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encouraged prejudice" against school children.

Quote:

Warren Throckmorton, a therapist who specializes in sexual orientation issues, similarly complained that his research had been misused, saying of ACPeds: "They say they're impartial and not motivated by political or religious concerns, but if you look at who they're affiliated with and how they're using the research, that's just obviously not true."

Quote:

Facts About Youth was challenged as not acknowledging the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Given that you have posted or linked to a number of sources that actually contradict your arguments, obviously having not read them fully, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to read the links that others post, either.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

No one with any sense of decency, morality, or common sense would sink to such depravity. If they do so choose, then they deserve to suffer all the resulting retribution, misery, and diseases and not expect others such as tax payers to pay for research and medical treatments.

Is it OK to have sex with the lights on?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

So, accepting the BoM and BA predisposes Latter-day Saints to accept certain research that shows children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents.

Surely you aren't serious.

I'm sure pakeha is being very serious. You've already demonstrated that you will ignore glaringly obvious evidence regarding the founder of your religion, why should we expect you to acknowledge scientific institutions that say that homosexuality is a normal aspect of human behavior?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.

Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.

It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.

You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.

You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

I haven't said anything about childhood poverty and whether or not it lends itself to conclusions about marriage.

Quote:

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.

Again, I haven't said anything about the number of children gays and lesbians can have. What is your point?